D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD; (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections except an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA

D.CI.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR vs. SH. SUBASH GANDHI , JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhry

reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD; (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections except an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR MITTAL,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. Opportunity that is to be given to the assessee should be a meaningful one and not a farce. Notice

SHRI MATI SANJANA MITTAL ,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. Opportunity that is to be given to the assessee should be a meaningful one and not a farce. Notice

SHRI SUSHIL MITTAL,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result,all the three appeals bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. Opportunity that is to be given to the assessee should be a meaningful one and not a farce. Notice

SHRI AMARDEEP SINGH SARKARIA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD-2(1), AMRITSAR

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meenaita No. 174/(Asr)/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10

275 ITR 242 (Del). 7. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that Notice received by his brother Shri Yadvender Singh who presented on 22.11.2016 with Shri S.B. Khanna advocate as per order sheet entry made as under:- “Today Shri S.B. Khanna, Adv. attended and filed returned reply along with POA given in his favour by Shri Yadvender Singh, younger brother

SHRIMATI NEETIMA GOYAL,FEROZPUR CANTT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,3(2), FEROZPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.184/Asr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Neetima Goyal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur Prop. Raghav Sales, G.T.Road, Ferozepur Cantt., Pin-152001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Panno. : Aicpg 3586 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri I.P.Bansal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Dr

section 147 and also on the ground that the sanction granted by the JCIT is not in accordance of mandate of law. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Smt. Prabha Rani Agarwal V. ITO. Copy at pages 1-7 of compendium. 5 6. From the reasons recorded it can be seen that just

SHRI H.K. GANDOTRA,GURGAON vs. THE INOCME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

section itself and, further, in harmony with the main provision, in consonance with which it is to be read, also making reference to s. 275 (1A). The premise of keeping the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the decision in the second appeal in the quantum proceedings is received by the competent authority, very clearly, is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

SHRI MADAL LAL,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reassessment. However, the logic of the same is applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it was obligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to pass the final order and issue demand notice only once the approval under Section 153D was received by the Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment. Being aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us by challenging the order of section 263 of the Act. 5. The assessee had filed written submissions and paper book which was kept in the record. By perusal the assessment order, the relevant part of the order is reproduced as below:- “09. Since the assessee has himself tried to cover up this

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment. Being aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us by challenging the order of section 263 of the Act. 5. The assessee had filed written submissions and paper book which was kept in the record. By perusal the assessment order, the relevant part of the order is reproduced as below:- “09. Since the assessee has himself tried to cover up this

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment. Being aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us by challenging the order of section 263 of the Act. 5. The assessee had filed written submissions and paper book which was kept in the record. By perusal the assessment order, the relevant part of the order is reproduced as below:- “09. Since the assessee has himself tried to cover up this

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment. Being aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us by challenging the order of section 263 of the Act. 5. The assessee had filed written submissions and paper book which was kept in the record. By perusal the assessment order, the relevant part of the order is reproduced as below:- “09. Since the assessee has himself tried to cover up this

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment. Being aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us by challenging the order of section 263 of the Act. 5. The assessee had filed written submissions and paper book which was kept in the record. By perusal the assessment order, the relevant part of the order is reproduced as below:- “09. Since the assessee has himself tried to cover up this

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment. Being aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us by challenging the order of section 263 of the Act. 5. The assessee had filed written submissions and paper book which was kept in the record. By perusal the assessment order, the relevant part of the order is reproduced as below:- “09. Since the assessee has himself tried to cover up this

M/S HEALTHAID FOODS SPECIALIST PVT. LTD ,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment. Being aggrieved assessee filed appeal before us by challenging the order of section 263 of the Act. 5. The assessee had filed written submissions and paper book which was kept in the record. By perusal the assessment order, the relevant part of the order is reproduced as below:- “09. Since the assessee has himself tried to cover up this